Jump to content

How can we stop/reduce cheating?


Followers 8

Recommended Posts

As for pre-pub FTF - we just had another major river series in my area archived by the caches' owners so it can be replaced/refreshed with a brand new major paddle series.  Multiple 'events' (unofficial) of people kayaking and/or tubing, where each participant is placing a handful of water caches.

Once published, they wait for the first finders to log their finds, then everyone who was in attendance logs their finds so as not to claim (post-publication) FTF.

 

It seems kind of cheesy, but really, everyone has done the work, and their finds are no different than a gathering of geocachers who intended to find all the water caches together long after publication. It's really only different in that the one who placed it was there with them when it was placed, and this happens all the time in plenty of other contexts; and that all those finds happened with one single water trip (rather than the owner's trip, then the finders' trip).

 

So I don't really have a problem with that, and I'd participate as well (with my personal ethic of making sure if actually see/touch where every cache along the river is placed) - but agreed with above - those who log it found without having even done the work to be there, the couch-logging, is against both the rules and the ethic of geocaching. And COs who allow "LWP" in those cases are also cheapening the owner responsibilities and privilege (same situation as allowing Find logs when the cache is missing, or letting a personal change their DNF to a Find once it's replaced, etc).

But those are situations where the "rule" (signature in logsheet, assuming the CO adds those finders' names) is met, but after questionable practices, and it still comes down to reviewers and/or HQ making a judgment call as to whether this is an ongoing abuse to be dealt with or a relatively innocuous instance that can just be ignored or shrugged off at the moment.

 

All in all, it's a hobby with a wide range of effectual rules/guidelines/ethics that makes it very hard to manage. Which is why I firmly believe promoting integrity is the best course of action, and TPTB should give consequences to those deemed to be abusing rights to the point of negatively affecting people's experiences. (And of course any people breaking hard rules/terms of use should face appropriate repercussions).

 

But I only see "cheating" being a relevant term if the system is set up to promote competition. Personally I try to avoid that term because this hobby isn't fundamentally competitive - even though there are profile statistics. That doesn't mean it's not possible to break rules or negatively affect other people's experiences.

Link to comment

Just had a discovered log on a travel bug I've had in my possession for over three years,  even though it states on the TB page "No virtual logs please".  

 

No in depth investigating needed on this one.  I just deleted the log and moved on.

 

Obsessing over cheaters just ruins the game for me.   I have better things to do with my time than police the Geocaching community.   In my opinion you can't legislate morality and trying to do so is a huge waste of time.        

Link to comment

Yep, obsessing is unhealthy and unhelpful.  But healthy promotion of what benefits the community should be encouraged.  If everyone were to simply take a hands off approach and shrug off everything, that was spell the end of the hobby. Enforcement falls in the hands of TPTB, but as a community we can promote the good and discourage the bad - without obsessing over enforcement.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Yep, obsessing is unhealthy and unhelpful.  But healthy promotion of what benefits the community should be encouraged.  If everyone were to simply take a hands off approach and shrug off everything, that was spell the end of the hobby. Enforcement falls in the hands of TPTB, but as a community we can promote the good and discourage the bad - without obsessing over enforcement.

I think most people who hid and find caches do so because they want to not because they have to.   I also think that the vast majority of them are responsible and try to to the right things.   For those reasons I don't think a hands off approach would spell the end of the hobby.

 

I'm all for playing the game right,  I just don't let those who choose not to effect my enjoyment of it.   

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I think most people who hid and find caches do so because they want to not because they have to.   I also think that the vast majority of them are responsible and try to to the right things.   For those reasons I don't think a hands off approach would spell the end of the hobby.

But in this context, you're saying it's okay for cache owners and finders to just shrug off things people do that negatively affect people's experiences, to not "obsess" over them.  I think it's naive to think the hobby can survive if such actions can run amok.  I think the middle ground, which I'm advocating, is that promoting good practices that make the hobby better, and discouraging practices that make the hobby worse for people, is not "obsessing", but healthy community strategy for the sake of the community. Obsessing is a whole different level that can make things worse, just as those who "cheat". On the other end, doing nothing at all can also make things worse as the hobby simply degrades.

Healthy promotion of practices that benefit the hobby and community is the best course of action. At least some mix of that and apathy :P a net positive.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

But in this context, you're saying it's okay for cache owners and finders to just shrug off things people do that negatively affect people's experiences, to not "obsess" over them.  I think it's naive to think the hobby can survive if such actions can run amok.  I think the middle ground, which I'm advocating, is that promoting good practices that make the hobby better, and discouraging practices that make the hobby worse for people, is not "obsessing", but healthy community strategy for the sake of the community. Obsessing is a whole different level that can make things worse, just as those who "cheat". On the other end, doing nothing at all can also make things worse as the hobby simply degrades.

Healthy promotion of practices that benefit the hobby and community is the best course of action. At least some mix of that and apathy :P a net positive.

No... what I said is I'm all for playing the game right but I'm not going to put a bunch of time and effort policing those who choose not to.   I take care of my caches and when finding a cache I'll post the appropriate logs according to the situation.  The rest I leave up to the reviewers to handle. 

 

The only way to encourage "good practices" is through example.   The only way to discourage "bad practices" is through logs.  

 

What I won't do is get upset or discouraged over something I have very little control over.    

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

The only way to encourage "good practices" is through example.   The only way to discourage "bad practices" is through logs.  

 

What I won't do is get upset or discouraged over something I have very little control over.   

 

Agreed.

But then I also love this hobby, and the community. At some point when I see stuff happen that doesn't have to happen that is hurting the community or impression of the hobby, I (we all) have a choice - be a voice of positivity and improvement, or turn a blind eye because "well it doesn't affect me / I can take it".  Nothing wrong individually with the latter, and I'm not saying anyone who doesn't be a 'voice of reason' is doing something Wrong. I'm saying that encouraging a positive community and good practices isn't automatically "obsessing".

There's a middle ground, and as a community if we can move towards a net positive for the community, this hobby will be much better off.

 

Encourage "good practices" by doing them, by example (and if you have opportunity for influence, you can choose to encourage it actively especially when new people are joining or asking questions).

Discourage "bad practices" by not doing them, by example (and if you have opportunity for influence, you can choose to discourage it actively by being transparent about what is generally considered good and bad for the community).

 

In short:

* If everyone takes a hands-off approach, that'll lead to a downward spiral for the hobby.

* If someone takes a hands-off approach, that's not a Bad Thing and in and of itself, and I think most people in this hobby have this mentality

* If someone actively encourages the good and discourages the bad, that's not obsessing, and is good for the community and the hobby.

* If someone goes out of their way to vilify people who do things the way they think is wrong, or in other words obsesses over their subjective "good" especially primarily against individuals doing things that don't directly affect them, that's bad for themselves and potentially for the community.

 

Can we not agree that the middle ground is generally the best position for people to be in for the sake of this community, self, and hobby?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
On 7/20/2021 at 1:54 PM, thebruce0 said:

Can we not agree that the middle ground is generally the best position for people to be in for the sake of this community, self, and hobby?

 

No. Humans instinctively take the path of least resistance, even when the choice is unethical or immoral (watch the news lately). Not that geocaching is at this same level.. but you're either good or your bad. If you're good then stand proud and loud. If you're bad, well then, pay the consequences even if that's just karma.

Edited by bflentje
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, bflentje said:

No.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? Because I don't disagree on principle with:

 

37 minutes ago, bflentje said:

Humans instinctively take the path of least resistance, even when the choice is unethical or immoral (watch the news lately). Not that geocaching is at this same level.. but you're either good or your bad. If you're good then stand proud and loud. If you're bad, well then, pay the consequences even if that's just karma.

 

I was taking a practical approach to the hobby. This is a general statement about the state of humanity.

You seem to be implying by your black/white mentality it's either strictly enforce all rules with no shame and make bad people bad, kick them from the game, anything necessary to provide a playable hobby; or have no rules and let everyone do what they want and just shrug off anything that may or may affect your or anyone else. I don't believe that's what you're saying. So, how does your statement play out in practice? It ain't black and white.

 

I'm advocating for encouraging the best in everyone. Not hands-off, and not policing; the middle ground.  Not requiring the best, and not disallowing anything doesn't simply "sit right" - yet still enforcing the enforceable rules that HQ provides (it's not 100% entirely "guidelines" that can be bent and interpreted at will).

 

Rules are rules. No questions there. Obey them in this hobby or face the consequences applied by TPTB.

The grey area we all play in (preferences and habits not against the rules or guidelines) will tend to the negative (as you say), so let's not sit back and it slide downhill, but be a positive influence and encourage good practices that are good for the community.  Is that a bad attitude? Really?

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
On 7/16/2021 at 2:07 AM, Ragnemalm said:

For caches: Taking a photo of the log book, a very specific requirement for specific situations, is not the same thing as bringing back arbitrary ALRs.

 

For events: Like I said, I see absoluetly no reason why the event log book should not be signed. Bad rule, fix it!

 

Putting the responsability on the CO does not work. Once a CO quits, cheaters can log all the COs lost caches as much as they please. The CO won't care.

 

There are cheaters, and one big problem they make is that they keep lost caches alive.

 

It's still an Additional Logging Requirement, any way you slice it, limited or otherwise.  They got out of that some time ago.

 

The only one who can truly control the logs being submitted on an as needed and immediate basis is the CO.  It may entail a bit more work but it's part of maintaining your cache.  Yes, a reviewer can step in but they would have to wait until someone notifies them of the issue, unless you're asking them to keep an eye on the thousands of caches in their areas, which is an unrealistic expectation.  I had someone file 3 finds of my caches but one of the logs seemed odd to me because they mentioned replacing a log, despite the fact that I have a vinyl log in there, due to the fact that it is going to get wet where it's placed, regardless of what I do.  I checked on it and sure enough, their signature wasn't in there.  Turns out a brand new cacher filed a DNF, left a baggie and some swag (despite this being a micro) that I didn't find (they left it under an upside down planter on a grave) when they mentioned they left something for the next seeker.  I checked the other 2 and those were both signed.  More work for me?  Yes, but I know that, going into this.

 

Is keeping "lost" caches alive that much of a thing?  If more cachers filed their NM/NA logs, then this issue would, in part, resolve itself. You want abandoned caches that are either missing or in bad shape taken off the map?  Then encourage more cachers to file NM logs and then subsequent NA logs after inaction by the CO.  That will help curtail the issue you seem to find discouraging.  Rather than waiting on the CHS or a reviewer to trigger the process, have your fellow cachers initiate the process.  

 

I have a bigger issue with throwdowns than I do with fake logs because I see more throwdowns than I do fake logs on caches that probably aren't there any longer.

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
On 7/20/2021 at 2:17 PM, justintim1999 said:

I'm all for playing the game right,  I just don't let those who choose not to effect my enjoyment of it.   

I saw this thread come up way back when and started reading through it, but stopped because it wasn't a subject that hooked my attention much. I finally scrolled through the contents, and the quote above best summed up my take on it. 👍

 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

The best solution is to not let cheaters bother you.  The game isn't a competition, and no one is winning or losing.

Yes, no one should overly let them worry them. No need to rush out to check. Just check when cache maintenance time  and routine checking the log comes around. Then if no log, delete.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

The best solution is to not let cheaters bother you.  The game isn't a competition, and no one is winning or losing.

 

That was something I couldn't muster. I stopped hiding caches because of too much cheating. Especially when a cache I worked really hard on to create a good experience from start to finish, got treated like it didn't matter. Well, except as a stepping stone to qualify for challenge caches. 40+ geocachers logged it as a find but didn't visit the cache or sign the log. 

 

I stopped planning geocaching vacations because of all the abandoned junk that was propped up by finders who left more abandoned junk in order to claim their "find". 

 

I still like to see what's going on in the forums, the debates continue to be interesting. 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 4
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Well, except as a stepping stone to qualify for challenge caches. 40+ geocachers logged it as a find but didn't visit the cache or sign the log. 

That's terrible, but if more COs deleted those logs, that would discourage that behaviour. Also, locally it will become known who checks their logs and is willing to delete if no signature, so that should reduce cheating, at least on that person's logs. Some people say they check and will delete if no signature. This might also encourage some other COs to follow. Another deterrent. I heard of one CO deleting more than 100 logs, because they signed the throw-down, and not the still in place actual cache. Although I think that was rough, unless there was a description of the cache (preferably in the hint, as this was a 'drive-by', in the sense it was close to parking) and the throw-down obviously didn't match. Delete the log of the person who made the throw-down though. The real cache was tough to find inside the works of an ex-rocket. I found the real one, I hope. My log is still there, so that's positive :lol:.

Edited by Goldenwattle
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

That's terrible, but if more COs deleted those logs, that would discourage that behaviour. Also, locally it will become known who checks their logs and is willing to delete if no signature, so that should reduce cheating, at least on that person's logs. 

 

Unfortunately, at least in my area, when there's one "group" signature in a logbook it is considered a legitimate logging method. Anyone in that group gets to log a find online. I can not request that everyone who logs a find must have their signature in the logbook. 

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Unfortunately, at least in my area, when there's one "group" signature in a logbook it is considered a legitimate logging method. Anyone in that group gets to log a find online. I can not request that everyone who logs a find must have their signature in the logbook. 

Then there was a signature. You said there wasn't. As long as the person heading the group lists everyone who was in attendance, I don't see the problem with that. It also stops the log from filling up quickly and the CO needing to go change the log, which they would have had to in the following example, as it wasn't a big log. Also, all the individual signatures might not have fitted. These people were listed as in attendance, because they were. It was the biggest group I have cached with.

This is part of a log the group organiser made (I removed all names, except mine).

 

"Found with a bunch of geocachers (25) who were attempting the Tunnels of Terror Cache and thought we could make a grab for this one too. We signed the log as the 'Australia Day Explorers' and as the organiser of the expedition I list them all here: name, name, namename, name,name, name, name, name, Goldenwattle, name, name, name, name, name, name, name, name, name, name, and name, with name, name and name. I have had a fabulous morning sloshing around in the drains. Thanks again TE - another FP from me :)"

 

The CO would know most of them, and I can't imagine he would have a problem with this.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

It also stops the log from filling up quickly and the CO needing to go change the log

Exactly. The reason groups I've been in have used a team name to sign the log has been to avoid filling up the logs with everyone's signatures. It's a courtesy to the CO.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Unfortunately, at least in my area, when there's one "group" signature in a logbook it is considered a legitimate logging method. Anyone in that group gets to log a find online. I can not request that everyone who logs a find must have their signature in the logbook. 

 

We had this happen years ago, where a CO was anal about everyone signing the log.  They only had paper strips, and not a log book

They'd contact people after finds for "updates" on their hides, and sometimes ask why they didn't get a FP too.  

After an event, we didn't mind one bit that every cache belonging to them got a NM afterwards...

We've received emails from COs that knew this large group, thanking us for saving them the trip. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Unfortunately, at least in my area, when there's one "group" signature in a logbook it is considered a legitimate logging method. Anyone in that group gets to log a find online. I can not request that everyone who logs a find must have their signature in the logbook. 

 

The last group caching trip I did when we used a group name was a river jaunt with a total of four kayaks in the flotilla. The two caches we did were deep within the mangroves where there was only room for one kayak to squeeze in. We were all there, it was just logistically easier for one of us to sign the group name than for each kayaker to paddle in, open the container, extract the log, sign it and put it back, or hand the log around for everyone to sign, all of which would've greatly risked the log and/or the container's lid being dropped in the water. We were all there, though, and witnessed the log being signed, and the group name was stated in the online logs.

 

GroupKayakCaching.jpg.6b9ab669d214d8fb931de8918f9dba44.jpg

 

Maybe the purists will be shaking their heads, but for me it's group outings like this that are one of the most enjoyable aspects of caching.

  • Upvote 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

all of which would've greatly risked the log and/or the container's lid being dropped in the water.

Ah, yes. I forgot about the geo-kayaking trips. Keeping the log dry can be hard enough without passing it around for everyone to sign individual names.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

hand the log around for everyone to sign, all of which would've greatly risked the log and/or the container's lid being dropped in the water.

I once swam out to a cache on a post in our local lake. I dropped the bison tube while treading water, in a current which was taking me with it, and trying to sign the log. Fortunately I didn't drop the log. I had to return and replace the bison. In a boat this time.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

The best solution is to not let cheaters bother you.  The game isn't a competition, and no one is winning or losing.

A passing thought: "Games" are about teams and stats and competition. "Hobbies" are about enjoyment and sharing it with others. 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

A passing thought: "Games" are about teams and stats and competition. "Hobbies" are about enjoyment and sharing it with others. 

 

 

I agree with your comment on my post; thinking of geocaching as a hobby more than a game could help the mindset.  

 

The geocaching website calls it a game though.  :sad:

 

Edited by GeoElmo6000
Added a sad face emoji
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
20 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Then there was a signature. You said there wasn't. As long as the person heading the group lists everyone who was in attendance, I don't see the problem with that. It also stops the log from filling up quickly and the CO needing to go change the log.

 

In your example I expect that you and all 25 people in the group were at ground zero. You saw the cache and watched as it was signed for the group.

 

In my example 3 people actually saw the cache. 40+ more people logged the find. 

 

Regarding the logbook, it was a large logbook that could hold 500 signatures easily. Most geocachers in my area can get 50 signatures on a 1cm by 30cm strip of paper. I think the most pressing reason to use one signature is to speed things up. Standing around the cache as the logbook is being signed is boring and slows the day down.

 

But I think a CO should be able to ask for signatures in the physical cache as would be expected when a lone cacher finds a cache. I realize that cheating could still take place--one person could write everyone's signature in the physical logbook, but I doubt they'll want to sign more than a handful of other names in the logbook. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

In your example I expect that you and all 25 people in the group were at ground zero. You saw the cache and watched as it was signed for the group.

 

In my example 3 people actually saw the cache. 40+ more people logged the find. 

 

Regarding the logbook, it was a large logbook that could hold 500 signatures easily. Most geocachers in my area can get 50 signatures on a 1cm by 30cm strip of paper. I think the most pressing reason to use one signature is to speed things up. Standing around the cache as the logbook is being signed is boring and slows the day down.

 

But I think a CO should be able to ask for signatures in the physical cache as would be expected when a lone cacher finds a cache. I realize that cheating could still take place--one person could write everyone's signature in the physical logbook, but I doubt they'll want to sign more than a handful of other names in the logbook. 

 

 

 

 

 

We each signed a separate attendance log (the organiser needed to know who was there), but on the actual cache log there was only the group name.  A photograph of it wasn't included, but if I were the organiser I would likely have photographed the attendance log too and included the photograph in my log.  However, the CO knows the organiser and likely knew he could trust her.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

But I think a CO should be able to ask for signatures in the physical cache as would be expected when a lone cacher finds a cache.

An ALR by any other name would smell as... sweet?

 

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I realize that cheating could still take place--one person could write everyone's signature in the physical logbook, but I doubt they'll want to sign more than a handful of other names in the logbook. 

The groups I've been in that have used a team name have never been so large that everyone couldn't have signed the log individually, or that one person couldn't have signed for everyone. Actually, on some trips, we've alternated, depending on our mood, on the size of the log, on how easy it is to pass the log around (think kayak caches), on any number of things really.

 

The largest group was over two dozen. That was for a destination cache: a night multi-stage puzzle cache. Yes, we had folks tagging along, not really helping much. But the group was small enough that anyone who wanted to could find a way to contribute, and anyone who wanted to could see how each stage worked even if they didn't help find it or work it out. Did everyone participate the same way? Not at all. But the CO (who accompanied us that night) was okay with that. And at the final, they passed the log around. I signed my own handle, as did others. Some signed for friends/family they had come with. The CO was okay with that too.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

one person could write everyone's signature in the physical logbook, but I doubt they'll want to sign more than a handful of other names in the logbook. 

 

When I've been with a group, individual cache names are signed.  But a couple of times, I've encountered a dozen cachers or so at a new cache placed for a Mega Event, and I've been frustrated when the guy over by the cache is signing everyone's name, including mine.

"Do you spell that with two 'E's'?  C...A...N...U... then what?!" :huh:

 

I'd have to push through the crowd to sign it, and other groups are arriving.  By suggesting that I'm OK with signing it myself, I'm holding everyone up.  It's nice of them to sign my name, but that's not my preferred way of doing things.  Plus the whole group is there and gone, much faster than I do this.  You gotta stop and smell the ammo cans!  :D

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 7/28/2021 at 9:16 AM, GeoElmo6000 said:

 

I agree with your comment on my post; thinking of geocaching as a hobby more than a game could help the mindset.  

 

The geocaching website calls it a game though.  :sad:

 

At the risk of touching off another tempest-in-a-teapot, that's how I cache. I'm on the lookout for other cachers, and if I see someone else in the act of caching, I go introduce myself. I think it's sad when people on here report having been caching for years, but only know a handful of other cachers. 

 

As for what the website calls it, maybe they'll change it. But at the end of the day, it's we geocachers who determine how things are, not some keyboard cruncher.

 

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 7/28/2021 at 6:56 AM, Ed_S said:

A passing thought: "Games" are about teams and stats and competition. "Hobbies" are about enjoyment and sharing it with others. 

 

Not all games are about teams and competition.  Solitaire is a game played by individuals.  Many game apps are for individuals.  Sure there may be stats but no formal competition (generally).

 

Most hobbies that I can think of don't have "rules/guidelines for play".

 

I have no problem calling the activity a "game".

 

  • Surprised 2
Link to comment
13 hours ago, The Jester said:

Not all games are about teams and competition.  Solitaire is a game played by individuals.  Many game apps are for individuals.  Sure there may be stats but no formal competition (generally).

 

Most hobbies that I can think of don't have "rules/guidelines for play".

 

I have no problem calling the activity a "game".

 

 

The ultimate goal of any game - solitaire, Scrabble, hide-and-go-seek, tennis, etc... - is to win, whatever that might entail.

 

How do you "win" geocaching?  Most fizzies?  Most finds?  Most DNFs?  Hardest challenge?  Easiest cache?

 

TBH, I don't really care what it's called.  I've called it both a game and a hobby/activity.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

The ultimate goal of any game - solitaire, Scrabble, hide-and-go-seek, tennis, etc... - is to win, whatever that might entail.

 

How do you "win" geocaching?  Most fizzies?  Most finds?  Most DNFs?  Hardest challenge?  Easiest cache?

 

Good points.

 

4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

TBH, I don't really care what it's called.  I've called it both a game and a hobby/activity.  

 

Me too. But I started thinking about what constitutes a "game" versus a "hobby." There are different types of geocachers, who cache for different reasons. We all know "stats people" for whom it's all about the numbers. And we all know people who don't give a flying freep about the numbers, they're in it for the experience of finding a cache, whether it involves a hike or just pulling up to a lamp post. It gives them pleasure to make the find. They're the hobbyists. The people who are about the numbers are the gamers. These are, of course, only generalities. Your mileage may vary.

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

The ultimate goal of any game - solitaire, Scrabble, hide-and-go-seek, tennis, etc... - is to win, whatever that might entail.

 

How do you "win" geocaching?  Most fizzies?  Most finds?  Most DNFs?  Hardest challenge?  Easiest cache?

 

TBH, I don't really care what it's called.  I've called it both a game and a hobby/activity.  

How do you win?  By finding the cache.  As with solitaire, it not how many [whatever's], it's that hand - win or lose.  Sure, the solitaire app I use lists the total wins, but that's not the goal of the game.  Neither is the find count (or other stats) the goal of geocaching (although, some may try and make it that).  I see "win the hand" the same as "find the cache".

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, The Jester said:

How do you win?  By finding the cache.  As with solitaire, it not how many [whatever's], it's that hand - win or lose.  Sure, the solitaire app I use lists the total wins, but that's not the goal of the game.  Neither is the find count (or other stats) the goal of geocaching (although, some may try and make it that).  I see "win the hand" the same as "find the cache".

 

Ah.  I play the Microsoft Solitaire Event.  Yes.  I need to win the game.  But I also need to beat the other players!

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

Ah.  I play the Microsoft Solitaire Event.  Yes.  I need to win the game.  But I also need to beat the other players!

So that game isn't like geocaching.  Microsoft Solitaire Event isn't like the game of football either.  Your point?

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
19 hours ago, The Jester said:

How do you win?  By finding the cache.  As with solitaire, it not how many [whatever's], it's that hand - win or lose.  Sure, the solitaire app I use lists the total wins, but that's not the goal of the game.  Neither is the find count (or other stats) the goal of geocaching (although, some may try and make it that).  I see "win the hand" the same as "find the cache".

That's caching the way you (and I) cache. But you know there are cachers out there to whom the stats/numbers are all-important. Are they doing it wrong? 

 

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Ed_S said:

That's caching the way you (and I) cache. But you know there are cachers out there to whom the stats/numbers are all-important. Are they doing it wrong? 

 

Nope, but the goal of geocaching hasn't changed (find the cache) but they've added their own personal goal (numbers/stats).  Just as if a solitaire player is in a tournament the goal of the game is still win that hand, but the goal of the tournament is added (win more hands than others).  

 

But this is all going way off course - can geocaching be called a game?  I say yes, it has all the elements needed for a game.  Maybe not every element for every game, but what game does?

Link to comment
18 hours ago, The Jester said:

 

But this is all going way off course - can geocaching be called a game?  I say yes, it has all the elements needed for a game.  Maybe not every element for every game, but what game does?

 

I think it can be a game or a hobby, depending on what you want to get out of it. To me it's a hobby. Your mileage may vary.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Ed_S said:

 

I think it can be a game or a hobby, depending on what you want to get out of it. To me it's a hobby. Your mileage may vary.

 

So, your hobby is the game of geocaching? :D:P

 

Side note Ed, does the Big Texas Steak Ranch down there still have the 72oz challenge steak?

Edited by The Jester
spelling
Link to comment
5 hours ago, SwineFlew said:

I know people setup a hiding account so they can log it as a found. 

 

I know people setup an event so they can participate and log is as attented.

 

 

On 8/5/2021 at 2:37 PM, Saenger said:

It seems to be possible to download all data (including answers etc.) for Lab-Caches as an .gpx-file, I just had the experience of someone, who didn't do the Lab-Cache, but got all answers, thus the coordinates for the Bonus-Cache and was the FTF at the bonus. Luckily I knew him, and got it sorted, and now the real FTF will now get the credits for that. I have not deleted his log, as he was at the container , but I think of this bonus caches as something like a challenge: You're only allowed to log, if you have done the lab. If you get the coordinates in any other manner, you're just a cheater.

 

It is funny to see how people think that finding a cache and logging it as found may require some additional steps like solving a puzzle or visiting other places.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 7/29/2021 at 3:33 AM, L0ne.R said:

But I think a CO should be able to ask for signatures in the physical cache as would be expected when a lone cacher finds a cache.

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't help in some cases, but the official statement from GS is this:

 

Quote

Logging Guidelines from Groundspeak Headquarters, Community Support, 01 Mar 16

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC65HPK_ferns-dark-secret-kylo?guid=77a75c45-d686-4741-a312-f3e0494af534

Technically, the guidelines don't specify that you must mark the log book yourself.

The guideline states: "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. " It doesn't specify if the user has to log it themselves.

Thus yes, if a group of cachers find a cache and a user signs the names for all, this is allowed.

Your text on the cache descriptions is fine as it is.

 

Happy caching,

Nicole
Community Support, Groundspeak


And this is the referred description:

So in compliance with the guidelines somebody has to put a mark into the logbook. It can be a sticker, a stamp, a signature or something else. If your buddy and not you puts the mark in the logbook, that's fine as well. However it doesn't count when you are not at the cache, which is up in the tree.

 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, The Jester said:

So, your hobby is the game of geocaching? :D:P

 

Side note Ed, does the Big Texas Steak Ranch down there still have the 72oz challenge steak?

Yes, it does. I haven't had a go at it, and I don't plan to.  I like to be able to walk, instead of roll, away from the dinner table!  I'm always up for a good steak, though. 

 

  • Funny 1
Link to comment

Here is another "cheating" angle that I've not seen before.

 

[Screenshot of cache page removed by moderator.  The screenshot showed six consecutive, identical "found it" logs from the same geocacher, many years ago.  This cannot happen today - the system enforces a rule of only one find per cache per account.]

 

Edited by Keystone
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

That looks like a glitch.


There was an actual glitch with The App, that caused a bunch of Find logs in a row like that. That must have been at least part of what got TPTB to stop multiple Finds on caches… the decision came down while this App thing was happening.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, kunarion said:


There was an actual glitch with The App, that caused a bunch of Find logs in a row like that. That must have been at least part of what got TPTB to stop multiple Finds on caches… the decision came down while this App thing was happening.

 

Yep, I remember that. If the app didn't receive an acknowledgement back from the server it just kept resending the log and the server happily accepted all the duplicate logs. Rather than fix the app handshaking bug, their solution was to block multiple finds.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 8
×
×
  • Create New...